Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore

Quest Journals Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science Volume 2 ~ Issue 10 (2014) pp: 48-61 ISSN(Online) : 2321-9467 www.questjournals.org Research Paper

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India Anu Singh Lather1, Shilpa Jain2, Anju Dwivedi Shukla3 1

Professor, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, India 2 Assistant Professor, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, India 3 Research Scholar, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, India

Received 20 September, 2014; Accepted 08 November, 2014 © The author(s) 2014. Published with open access at www.questjournals.org ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to analyse and compare components of creativity of students with respect to their locus of control, age, gender and family type. The study was conducted on students of undergraduate and post graduate programmes of university of Mysore. The data was collected from a sample of 244 students, of which 112 were males and 132 were females. It was also found that 146 students had external locus of control and 98 students were found to have internal locus of control. The students were divided into three age groups, the first group consisted of students from 18 to 20 years, second group comprised of students from 21 to 23 years and the last group was formed of students from 24 to 26 years. When the family type was considered it was found that 81 students came from joint family and 163 students were from nuclear family.

Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults and Levenson & Miller’s Locus of Control tests were administered on students and their socio – demographic details were taken. The results show that the respondents with external and internal locus of control significantly differ on components of creativity. The students with internal locus of control were found to be higher on Fluency, Elaboration, Flexibility, Figural Response, Norm Referenced Creativity, Criterion Referenced Creativity and Total Creativity. Females were found to be significantly better than males on Originality, Elaboration, Flexibility, Norm Referenced and Criterion Referenced creativity.

Within the different age groups it was found that the students from the age groups of 21-23 and 18-20years were better than the students in age group of 24-26 on Elaboration, Verbal creativity, Norm Referenced and Criterion Referenced Creativity. The interaction of locus of control and age groups revealed that the students with internal locus of control in the age group of 18-23 were significantly higher on Fluency, Verbal Responses, Norm Referenced Creativity, and Criterion Referenced creativity as compared to students having external locus of control in this age group, while in the age group of 24-26 years, the externals are higher on these creativity factors as compared to internals. The results of students living in Nuclear and Joint families show that the students belonging to Nuclear families are significantly higher on Fluency, Norm Referenced Creativity and Overall Creativity as compared to the students living in Joint families. Interestingly the results also revealed that the students with internal locus of control living in nuclear families are significantly higher on norm referenced creativity and total creativity as compared to the one’s living in joint families while the results are vice versa for students with external locus of control.

Keywords: Creativity, Elaboration, Flexibility, Fluency, Locus of Control I.

INTRODUCTION

Man has been involved in the process of creative imagination since time immemorial. The world in which he has been has always made demands for something new – ideas, process or products. Guilford (1965) observes that creativity, like love, is a many splendored thing. 'Whether it is considered from the viewpoint of its effects on society, or as one of the expressions of the human spirit, creativity stands out as an activity to be studied, cherished and cultivated (Arieti, 1976). Toynbee (1964) has rightly remarked that, ―a few creative minds can make enormous differences to civilisation.‖ Highly creative people are a national resource and such people should be identified at the school stage only and permitted to pursue the field of activity in which they *Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather 48 | Page 1 Professor, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi,India

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India show talent. It is essential that the nation should become concerned about all its potential human resources, especially aware of the waste and loss of such resources in each person (Taylor, 1978).

A large body of knowledge exits in the psychology literature on the definition of and traits that constitute creativity. Zaidi (1966) writing on the nature of creativity says: “Creativity is the mystic smile on Mona Lisa’s face; it is the creation of universal characters like Prince Hamlet and Prince Mishkin (Idiot) and oblomove; it is the invention of the wheels, and the numbers, it is Newton’s law of gravitation, Galileo’s foresight; it is Shakespear’s, Ghalib’s and Eliot’s spontaneous flow of words, and symbols combined into new meanings and harmonious patterns, it is Beethoven’s and Mozart’s melodeous combination of sounds. And at the same time, it is the crude lines of a child’s drawings, the unique pattern in the flower decoration of a housewife; it is imagining the consequences of events and trends and thinking of the solutions of hypothetical problems.”

Torrance defined creativity as ―the process of sensing problems or gaps in information, forming ideas of hypotheses, testing, and modifying these hypotheses, and communicating the results. This process may lead to any one of many kinds of products—verbal and nonverbal, concrete and abstract‖ (Torrance 1963).

Examining the relationship between age and creativity has been of great interest to researchers (Amabile, 1996). Published in 1953, Harry Lehman‘s Age and Achievement remains the most ambitious empirical study of the relationship between age and creativity ever undertaken by a psychologist. Nonetheless, there is agreement in the research literature (e.g., Cole 1979; Dennis 1966; Horner, Rushton & Vernon 1986) that, allowing for differences in definitions and methodology, somewhere around 40 is the most productive age.

Despite this, it should be borne in mind that many famous creative individuals continued to produce until well into later life: Darwin, Freud and Einstein became famous in their twenties and remained active into their seventies - those who start youngest seem to continue longest. According to Simonton (Simonton, 1988, 1997) the peak performance of creativity varies among the different domains. For example, in the domains of poetry and mathematics the peak performance is rather early in life while the decline after the peak is rather large. In domains like history and geology the peak is much later and the post-peak decline-rate is rather small (Simonton, 1988, 1997). In 1993, Howard Gardner of Harvard observed that ―while other kinds of writing seem relatively resistant to the processes of aging, lyric poetry is a domain where talent is discovered early, burns brightly and then peters out at an early age.‖ Bhargave (1979) conducted his study on 300 adults, and found no relation between age and creativity.

Alpaugh et al. (1982), in their study on 61 Caucasion women, found that one of the most important divergent thinking abilities involved in creative writing, fluency, declines with age. McCrae (1987) et. al., administered six measures of divergent thinking on 825 men ranging in age from 17 to 101 over the period from 1959 to 1972; repeat administrations were given to a subset of 278 men after a 6-year interval. Cross-sectional analyses showed curvilinear trends, with an increase in scores for men under 40 and a decline thereafter. Davis (1993) and Pariser and van den Berg (1995) reported a U-shaped developmental trend of artwork production by comparing creativity among children, adolescent artists and non artists, and adult artists and non artists. Both studies revealed that, unlike adolescent artists and adult artists, adolescent non artists and adult non artists did not show advancement out of the conventional phase of mid childhood.

Lee (1994) conducted his study on 200 adults across four age cohorts of young (17-22), middle –aged (40-50), old (60-70) and old-old (75+). Standard methods of scoring were used to obtain measures of fluency, flexibility and originality. The results showed that middle-aged subjects scored highest on all 3 measures. Wu et. al. (2005) conducted study exploring performances on 3 types of creativity tasks (real-world problem, figural, and verbal; Torrance, 1974) in 22 6th-grade students and 22 university students from Hong Kong. As compared to 6th-grade students‘ scores, university students‘ scores (both quality and quantity) were significantly higher on the real-world problem and significantly lower on the figural task. On the verbal task, the groups did not differ.

Binnewies et al. (2008), conducted a study on 117 nurses (in the age group of 24 to 45 years), the findings showed that age was unrelated to idea creativity.

From the above studies, it is clear that there exist no consensus on the relationship of creativity and age. Some researchers report a positive relationship whereas others reported a negative relationship.

Researchers have held the view that there are differences in the creative ideation of individuals with internal and external locus of control. Golann (1963) has stated that one of the variables related to the ability to be creative is the presence of an internal source of direction. Torrance (1971) found that creative individuals tended to function more effectively when external reinforcement was not prevalent an indication of locus of control. Erwin and Steinke (1973) conducted a study on ninety 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students, to study the relationship between scores on the Rolter's Internal-External scale, Guilford's Unusual Uses Test and a sorting task which examined their level of abstractness. No trends were seen between locus of control scores, measures of uncommonness and levels of abstractness. Glover and Sautter (1976) found that individuals with internal *Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

49 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India locus of control scored higher on flexibility and originality subscales of creativity tests. On the other hand, they also found that individuals possessing external locus of control excelled in verbal feedback and scored higher on elaboration subscales of creativity tests. Richmond and De La Serna (1980) and Chadha (1989) found a significant relationship between creativity and internal locus of control.

The majority of the research in the field of creativity has been concentrated on gender and birth order.

Considering the various studies of creativity with sex as a variable the findings show diversified results. Razik (1964) studied samples from four colleges including agriculture, education, engineering and applied arts, and found that girls outranked boys in their creative ability. On a college sample of 191 females and 123 males Middents (1968) found boys scores significantly higher than those of girls on non-verbal elaboration. Simpkins and Eisenmen (1968), worked on a sample of 116 subjects, of which 65 were females and 51, males, results revealed that there was a trend for females to score higher than males, although the difference was not significant. Raina (1970) conducted studies on 50 teachers to find out the sex difference on creativity. He could not observe any difference on ideational fluency drawn from above tests. Bowers (1971) studied thirty six male and thirty five female undergraduates, and found that women showed higher scores on creativity than men.

Raina (1971) studied sex differences in creative functioning of 30 male and 25 female teachers. The findings revealed no significant difference in verbal creativity of male and female teachers, but they differed significantly in originality aspect of non-verbal creativity which favoured males. Olive (1972) compared 197 males and 237 females and found the latter to be superior on five of the seven creativity tasks administered on them. Victor and Anne (1974) investigated the relationship between creative functioning and gender. Subjects included 30 males and females who all were undergraduates. In the final analysis, females were found to be more creative than males. A very significant study was conducted by Alpaugh and Birren (1975) on young, middle aged and older people (20-83 years old) and concluded that the degree of sex role identification was not related to creativity. In a series of studies of creativity in art using a collage-making task with adults, Amabile (1983) found ―there was a nearly significant sex difference. Females made collages that were rated higher in creativity than those made by males. Tripathi (1983) in his study on 354 B.Ed. teacher- trainees concluded that females were higher on creativity than the males. Singh (1986) conducted a study to find sex difference in science teachers on a sample of 100 teachers. Results showed that male and female teachers did not differ significantly in their creativity.

Habibollah et al. (2009) in his study on 152 subjects revealed that females‘ mean score was greater than the males‘ mean for Creativity, but the standard deviations between females and males were not higher. Naderi et al. (2009), in his study on 153 undergraduate Iranian students (48 females, 105 males; aged 19 to 27 years) of Malaysia Universities. The results revealed no significant difference between female and male students` overall creative perception. The studies of sex difference on creativity presents a confusing pattern of results. These confusing results need further research and clarification. It is clear that some of these discrepancies must arise from differences between the studies in terms of sampling, nature of test, conditions of administration and so on.

The present study is also one further step in the direction of understanding sex differences in creativity.

Not many researchers have tried to explore the role of nuclear family and joint family on creativity level of an individual. Sharma (1982) conducted a study was to explore the relationship of creativity with certain background, psychological and organizational factors of students of higher secondary schools of Delhi. The sample consisted of 481 students (230 boys and 251 girls), the findings revealed that creativity was higher in nuclear families as compared to joint families. Raina (1986) in his study on 1000 students attempted to find out the effect of type of family on scientific creativity of students of different schools. The findings of the study were that the type of family, single or Joint did not have any relationship with the scientific creativity of the boys. Whereas girls of single families were most creative in science, and girls of joint families were least creative. From these few studies, it seems that subjects belonging to nuclear family are considered to be more creative in comparison to those belonging to joint families. Since the studies are limited, it will be quite early to reach a conclusion. Further research is needed to establish a definite relation between creativity and type of family.    

II.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To find out the difference in components of creativity of male and female students.

To compare the students belonging to different age groups (18-20 yrs, 21-23 yrs and 24-26 yrs) on components of creativity.

To compare the components of creativity of students coming from nuclear family and joint family.

To compare the students on components of creativity having internal or external locus of control.

III. H1.

H2.

HYPOTHESIS

Female students would score high on creativity in comparison to males.

There will be no significant difference in creativity of students belonging to different age groups (18-20 yrs, 21-23 yrs and 24-26 yrs).

*Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

50 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India H3.

H4.

Students coming from nuclear family would score higher on creativity in comparison to students from joint family.

Students with the internal locus of control would be higher on components of creativity.

IV.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The sample has been selected on the basis of purposive sampling. The total sample selected consisted of 450 students studying in University of Mysore. Out of 450, a total of 244 usable responses were obtained with return rate of 53.3%.

The research design is given below: Students (N=244)

Here, ILOC=Internal Locus of Control 18Y-20Y= between the age group of 18 to 20 years 21Y-23Y= between the age group of 21 to 23 years 24Y-26Y= between the age group of 24 to 26 years F = Females NF= Nuclear Family

V.

ELOC= External Locus of Control

M = Males JF = Joint Family

TOOLS USED

A three – part questionnaire was used for data collection.

5.1 Socio- Demographic This part of the questionnaire was concerned with collecting socio-demographic details such as name, gender, age, educational level and department.

5.2 Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTAs) The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) ―is the most widely used and most researched creativity test‖ (Goff & Torrance, 2002, p. 36).The ATTA was developed from the TTCT and both content and face validity have been established by the Scholastic Testing Service (Goff & Torrance).

The ATTA assessment consists of ―four norm-referenced abilities and fifteen criterion referenced creativity indicators‖ (Goff & Torrance, 2002, p. 1).

The four norm-referenced measures are identified as the following:  Fluency- the ability to produce quantities of ideas which are relevant to the task instruction.  Originality – the ability to produce uncommon ideas that are totally new or unique.  Elaboration – the ability to embellish ideas with details.  Flexibility – the ability to process information or objects in different ways, given the same stimulus.

The fifteen criterion-referenced creativity indicators included the following (Goff & Torrance, p. 2): *Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

51 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India 

verbal responses- which included richness and colourfulness of imagery, emotions and feelings, future orientation and humour, conceptual incongruity and provocative questions; and  figural responses- which included openness and resistance to premature closure, unusual visualization and different perspectives, movement and/or sound, richness and/or colourfulness of imagery, abstractness of titles, context or the environment for object and articulateness in telling story, combination and synthesis of two or more figures, internal visual perspective, expressions of feelings and emotions, and fantasy.

Raw scores from the four norm-referenced measures were converted to normalize scaled score, and were added to fifteen criterion-referenced indicators which received a score ranging from 0 to 2, to create the creativity index (CI).

A seven- point scaled score was developed to interpret the resulting creativity index and Table 1 provides this essential information.

5.3 Locus of Control (LOC) Levenson and Miller (1976) multidimensional scale of I-E control was used to measure LOC. It has 24 items related to two sub areas namely internal control and external control. External control has two sub scales i.e. powerful others and chance. The subjects are required to respond to each item on a 5-point scale. The score on the 8 item of each sub-area was used as a score. The higher the score, the greater the subject‘s degree of expectancy for the particular aspect of locus of control.

VI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

After seeking permission from the instructors, the researcher visited the classes in order to administer the questionnaires. The students were made certain that the results remain confidential and their instructors would not see the results of the questionnaires. The questionnaires were administered in one session under standard conditions. The directions of the questionnaires were in English; however, the researcher explained them once more so that participants would have a clear understanding of what they were supposed to do.

The data collected were put into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to be analyzed.

VII.

RESULTS

7.1 Components of Creativity and Locus of Control Table 1.1 shows the results of Two Way MANOVA with gender and locus of control as independent variables and factors of creativity as dependent variable. The two way MANOVA (Table 1.1) revealed that Locus of Control impacted significantly on the dependent variable of creativity with Wilks‘ Lambda = .68, F value =11.78 and significance value = .00. Further scrutiny of Analysis of Variance for all factors of creativity according to locus of control (Table 1.2) revealed that Fluency, Elaboration, Flexibility, Figural Response, NR Creativity, CR Creativity and Total Creativity are significantly different according to Locus of Control of the students. Analysis of the mean table (Table 1.4) shows that students with Internal LOC score significantly higher than students with External LOC on Fluency, Elaboration, Flexibility, Figural Response, NR Creativity, CR Creativity and Total Creativity. Also, students with Internal LOC have scored higher than students with External LOC on Originality and Verbal Responses as well but the score is not significant.

Table 2.1 shows the results of Two Way MANOVA with age group of students and Locus of Control as independent variables and factors of creativity as dependent variable. The two ways MANOVA (Table 2.1) revealed that locus of control did not impacted significantly on the dependent variable of creativity. Further scrutiny of Analysis of Variance for all factors of creativity according to locus of control (Table 2.2) revealed that none of the factors of creativity are significantly different according to locus of control of the students.

Analysis of the mean table (Table 2.3) shows students of Internal LOC scoring more than students with External LOC on Originality, Elaboration, Flexibility, NR Creativity and Total Creativity, but the difference is not significant.

Table 3.1 shows the results of Two Way MANOVA with Locus of control and Family Type as independent variables and factors of Creativity as dependent variable. The two way MANOVA revealed that Locus of Control impacted significantly on the combined dependent Creativity variables with Wilks‘ Lambda = .85, F value = 4.42 and significance value = .00.The further scrutiny of the ANOVA table (Table 3.2) for all factors of creativity according to Locus of Control shows that fluency, elaboration, flexibility, Figural Responses, NR Creativity, CR Creativity and Total Creativity are significantly different according to Locus of Control. Analysis of mean table (Table 3.3) shows that Internally Controlled students are significantly high on Fluency, Elaboration, Flexibility, Figural Responses, NR Creativity, CR Creativity and Total Creativity in comparison to externally controlled students. Internally controlled students are also high on Originality and Verbal Response in comparison to externally controlled students but the difference is not significant.

From the above result it becomes very clear that creative students (scoring high on Fluency, Elaboration, Flexibility, Originality, Figural Response, Verbal Response, NR Creativity, CR Creativity and *Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

52 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India Total Creativity) have an Internal Locus of Control. This means that students who believe that their personal efforts, behaviors or skills will influence and determine outcomes in their life have the capability of producing large number of ideas which are unique. They have the ability to embellish those ideas with details. They are also capable of processing the same information or objects in different ways. Internally oriented students do not take premature decisions, they try and analyse problem from all perspective before reaching a conclusion. They also have the capability of capturing the essence or deeper meaning of the problems and they are able to communicate their views clearly and powerfully.

7.2 Components of Creativity and Gender Table 1.1 shows the results of Two Way MANOVA with gender and locus of control as independent variables and factors of creativity as dependent variable. The two way MANOVA (Table 1.1) revealed that gender impacted significantly on the dependent variable of creativity with Wilks‘ Lambda = .92, F value =2.00 and significance value = .03. Further scrutiny of Analysis of Variance for all factors of creativity according to gender (Table 1.2) revealed that Originality, Elaboration, Flexibility, Norm referenced Creativity and Total Creativity are significantly different according to gender of the students. Analysis of the mean table (Table 1.3) shows that female students score significantly higher than male students on Originality, Elaboration , Flexibility, NR Creativity and Total Creativity. Also, females have scored higher than males on Fluency, Verbal Responses, Figural Responses and CR Creativity as well, but the score is not significant.

The two ways MANOVA (Table 1.1) revealed that interaction between Gender and Locus of Control which did not impacted significantly on the combined dependent variable Creativity.

The result clearly shows that female students in comparison to their male counterparts have scored high on various variables of creativity like Originality, Elaboration, Flexibility, NR Creativity, Total Creativity, Fluency, Verbal Responses, Figural Responses and CR Creativity. It become clear that female students are able to produce uncommon ideas inculcating great details into it, moreover they are not rigid in their approach leaving scope for viewing things from all perspective.

7.3 Components of Creativity and Age Group Analysis of Variance for all factors of creativity according to age-group of students (Table 2.1) revealed that Elaboration, Verbal Responses, NR Creativity and Total Creativity are significantly different according to Age-group of the students. If we analyse the mean table (Table 2.2), we will notice a trend appearing that score of students on various factors of creativity (Elaboration, Verbal Responses, NR Creativity and Total Creativity) increases from 18-20 yrs to 21-23 yrs and then decreases at 24-26 yrs. The other factors such as Fluency, Originality, Figural Responses and CR Creativity also show the same trend but the difference is not significant.

From the results it becomes clear that creativity tends to increase from 18 years to 23 years thereby taking a dip at 24-26 years. By this result we can say that creativity increases from 18 years until 23 years and there after decreases. Meaning thereby that students in the younger age group tend to be more creative in comparison to older students. Younger students have the ability to embellish ideas with details rather than being restricted to the core idea. Younger students are also able to give more number of original and unique responses or solutions for a give problem. They also have the ability to process information or objects in different ways given the same stimulus and this quality of theirs is very helpful when logical approaches fail to produce satisfactory results.

Analysis of Variance for all factors of creativity (Table 2.1) revealed that Fluency, Verbal Responses, NR Creativity, CR Creativity and Total Creativity are significantly different when Age-group and Locus of control of the students interact.

If we analyse the mean table (Table 2.5), we notice that Internally controlled students in the age group of 18-20 yrs and 21-23 yrs are high on Fluency scale in comparison to Externally controlled students in the same age group. Whereas externally controlled students in the age group of 24-26 yrs have scored high on Fluency in comparison to internally controlled students of same age group. Looking at Verbal Responses, we find that internally controlled students in the age group of 18-20 yrs and 21-23 yrs score higher in comparison to externally controlled students in the same age group. Whereas, Externally controlled students in the age group of 24-26 yrs scored higher in comparison to Internally controlled students in the same age group . As far as Norm Referenced (NR) Creativity is concerned, we again observe the same thing that Internally controlled students in the age group of 18-20 yrs and 21-23 yrs are high on NR Creativity in comparison to Externally controlled students in the same age group. Whereas externally controlled students in the age group of 24-26 yrs have scored high on NR Creativity in comparison to internally controlled students of same age group. Coming to Criterion Referenced (CR) Creativity, the same pattern persist, which shows that Internally controlled *Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

53 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India students in the age group of 18-20 yrs and 21-23 yrs are high on CR Creativity in comparison to Externally controlled students in the same age group. Whereas Externally controlled students in the age group of 24-26 yrs have scored high on CR Creativity in comparison to Internally controlled students of same age group. Next is Total Creativity and this also shows that internally controlled students in the age group of 18-20 yrs and 21-23 yrs are high on Total Creativity in comparison to externally controlled students in the same age group. Whereas externally controlled students in the age group of 24-26 yrs have scored high on Total Creativity in comparison to internally controlled students of same age group.

If we analyse the result we can draw a conclusion that there exist a pattern which shows that internally controlled students in the age group of 18-20 yrs and 21-23 yrs are high on various factors of creativity like Fluency, Verbal Response, NR Creativity, CR Creativity and Total Creativity in comparison to externally controlled students in the same age group. Also, we see that Externally Controlled students in the age group of 24-26 yrs are high on Fluency, Verbal Response, NR Creativity, CR Creativity and Total Creativity in comparison to Internally controlled students in the same age group. This makes it clear that students who believe that outcomes in their life depends on their own actions and choices show high level of creativity in comparison to students who have a belief that whatever happens in their life is controlled by powerful others or is dependent on chance factor. Also we see that students in higher age group are externally oriented and have a high level of creativity.

7.4 Components of Creativity and Family Type The ANOVA table (Table 3.1) for all factors of creativity according to family type shows that fluency, NR Creativity and Total Creativity are significantly different according to Creativity. Analysis of mean table (Table 3.4) shows that students belonging to Nuclear family are high on Fluency, NR Creativity and Total Creativity in comparison to students belonging to Joint family. Students belonging to Nuclear family also score high on Originality, Elaboration, flexibility, Verbal Responses, Figural Responses and CR Creativity in comparison to students of Joint family, but the score is not significant. Results clearly shows that students of nuclear family score higher on all variables of creativity in comparison to students of joint family.

The two way MANOVA revealed that interaction between Locus of Control and Family Type did not impacted significantly on the combined dependent variable Creativity.

The further scrutiny of the ANOVA table (Table 3.2) for all factors of creativity shows that only NR creativity and Total Creativity is significantly different when Locus of Control and Family type interacts.

Analysis of mean table (Table 3.5) shows that internally controlled students of Nuclear family are high on NR Creativity in comparison to Externally Controlled students of Nuclear family. Again, internally controlled students of Joint family are high on NR Creativity in comparison to Externally Controlled students of Joint Family. Further, internally controlled students of Nuclear family are high on Total Creativity in comparison to Externally Controlled students of Nuclear family. Again, internally controlled students of Joint family are high on Total Creativity in comparison to Externally Controlled students of Joint Family.

VIII.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

8.1 Components of Creativity and Gender A number of comparisons have been made between the scores of girls and boys on various measures of creativity. Torrance (1972) has reported that beginning in 1958 and continuing into the early 1960‘s, it was found that boys consistently excelled girls in most measures of originality and that girls excelled boys in ability to elaborate ideas and in most verbal measures of creative thinking. He also observed that in the 1960‘s and into the 1970‘s, sex differences in measured creative thinking abilities began to fade out (Torrance, 1972, p.597).

Similarly, Kogan concludes that sex differences in various cognitive functions have diminished in recent years (Kogan, 1974, p.12).Torrance (1983) found that gender differences in divergent thinking ability have changed over time. Meaning thereby that in the present context girls score higher than boys on almost all subset of creativity as found in the present study. The results of this study are also consistent with those of others (Flaherty, 1992; Boling & Boling, 1993; Kogan, 1974; Coone, 1969; Warren and Luria, 1972; & Dudek, Stobel & Runco, 1993). The higher score in favour of girls may be attributed to diverse role expectations from them in the modern context, in comparison to earlier times where females were expected to take care to family and indoor activities. Now females along with the males are expected to go out of the house and work and along with it they are supposed to take good care of the children and the family at home. Over time the activities of females have been adding up and becoming more diverse in comparison to male counterpart, resulting in development of divergent thinking ability.

*Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

54 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India 8.2 Components of Creativity and Age Past research has not reached a consensus on how creativity is related to age. Some researchers have reported a positive relation and found that children become more creative as they get older (Smith and Carlsson, 1983; 1985). Smolucha and Smolucha (1985) reported a J-shaped pattern with a small peak at the age of 6 and higher peaks in the 20s. From the results of present study, we have found that creativity increases from 18 years until 23 years and there after decreases. This result can be explained with the help of the fact that at these ages a student is in the final year of graduation/post graduation and the emphasis is on logical rather than divergent thinking and the focus shifts to conventional behaviour, well defined problem solving, getting good grades to get a stable and reputed job. This peaking of divergent thinking in middle age is consistent with the findings of Jaquish and Ripple (1981) and the decline after middle age is in addition consistent with the findings of Lehman (1953), Guilford (1967), Alpaugh and Birren (1977) McCrae et al. (1987). A lot many explanations are available for such results, one being offered is that fluid intelligence increases until early middle age and then declines suggesting that divergent thinking is a kind of fluid intelligence (Schaie & Labouvie – Vief, 1974). Others believe that operations underlying divergent thinking are the same at all ages but vary with age in how effectively or efficiently they are used. Specifically, effectiveness or efficiency peaks in middle age and declines markedly especially in the later portion of old age. Giving support to the above findings, Lehman stated that ‗it remains clear that the genius does not function equally well throughout the years of adulthood. Superior creativity rises relatively rapidly to a maximum which occurs usually in the thirties and then falls off slowly.‖ This happen because of the fact that old seems stereotyped and rigid, when a situation requires a new way of looking at things, the acquisition of new technique or even new vocabularies. According to Simonton (Simonton, 1988, 1997) the relationship between age and creative performance is based on historiometric research. Creative performance rapidly increases until the age of 30 till 40 after which the performance output gradually declines. At the final years of one‘s career, the creative output becomes half the rate compared to the career peak around the 30s.

8.3 Components of Creativity and Family Several authors have proposed that one of the key influences on creative development is the physical and social environment of the child, comprised of family, school, and societal spheres. The family environment may provide cognitive (e.g., intellectual stimulation) and affective (e.g., emotional security) support for creativity as well as providing the physical setting in which a child grows (Harrington, Block & Block, 1987).

Parental practices that are associated with the production of original problem solutions, therefore, encourage students to search for alternatives when usual behaviours are ineffective in handling problematic situations.

Encouragement or discouragement of such practices is likely to vary with the family structure – whether it is nuclear or joint. The findings of our study shows that children who are brought up in a nuclear family show more creativity in comparison to children of joint family. This is easily explained by the fact that in joint families, parents have to stick to traditional ways and sacrifice the extent of freedom they can give to their children for the sake of adjustment. The likings and disliking of the other members are also to be taken into consideration in joint families. Another possible reason could be the diversion of their mental energies into petty conflicts between different members rather than channelizing their energies into constructive work. In nuclear families, the parents are more permissive and more tolerant of their children‘s behaviour whereas in joint families, they may have to curb the activities of their children who would be expected to behave in certain desired ways. Generation gap leading to interference and conflicts in the rearing practices adopted by the parents and the grand parents may also induce conflicts in the children so as to hinder their creativity. In joint families, parents have to stick to the traditional ways and hence may discourage the expression of unconventional behaviour in their children.

REFERENCES [1].

[2].

[3].

[4].

[5].

[6].

[7].

[8].

Alpaugh, P. K., Parham, I. A., Cole, K. D., & Birren, J. E. (1982). Creativity in adulthood and old age: An exploratory study.

Educational Gerontology, 8, 101 - 116.

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Berglund, H. and Wennberg, K. (2006) ‗Creativity among entrepreneurship students: comparing engineering and business education‘, Int. J. Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp.366–379.

Bindal, V.R., A Study of Creativity in relation to Experimental Attitude and Pupil's Perception of Parents' Attitude towards Creativity, Ph.D. Edu., DAVV, 1984 Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Niessen , C. (2008). Age and creativity at work: The interplay between job resources, age and idea creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23,No.4, 438-457 Bowers, K.S. Sex and Susceptibility as Moderator Variables in the Relationships of Creativity and Hypnotic Suggestibility. J. of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 78, 1, 93-100.

Desai, N.N., An Investigation into the Creative Thinking Ability of Students of Higher Secondary of Gujarat State in the Context of some Psycho-socio Factors, Ph.D. Edu., SPU, 1987

*Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

55 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India [9].

[10].

[11].

[12].

[13].

[14].

[15].

[16].

[17].

[18].

[19].

[20].

[21].

[22].

[23].

[24].

[25].

[26].

[27].

[28].

[29].

[30].

[31].

[32].

[33].

[34].

[35].

[36].

[37].

E.A.M. van Erp (2009)- Aging and its Effect on the Creative Performance at work - in relation with Work Environment and Personality-Master Thesis , Maastricht University.

Goyal, R.P. A Study of Some Personality Correlates of Creativity in Secondary School Teachers under Training. Doctoral Dissertation, Punjab University, Patiala, 1973.

Habibollah., N., Rohani., A., Tengku Aizan, H., & Jamaluddin, S. ,Kumar,V. (2009). Creativity, Age and Gender as Predictor of Academic Achievement Among Undergraduate Students. Journal of American Sciences, 5(5): 101-112.

Jackson, R.L. An Investigation of the Creative Growth Curves of University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1968, 28, 9, 3508-A. Kumari, K., A Study of Relationship among Creativity, Intelligence, Adjustment and Value Patterns in Adolescence, Ph.D. Psy., Agra U., 1975.

Kundu D., A Study of Creativity, Ego-Strength and Extraversion-An Empirical Investigation, Ph.D. Edu., Del. U., 1984 Lal, G. ―Relationship of sex and creativity, General anxiety, vocational anxiety and teaching success,‖ Journal of Educational Research and Extension. 14 (2), (1977), 36-38.

Lee, L.J. (1994) ―Effects of Age and Sex on Verbal Divergent Thinking in Adulthood‖, The Journal of National Chengehi University, Vol. 69, 1994.

Lehman, H. ―Chemists most creative years,‖ Science. Vol 127 (1953), 1213-22 Lehman, H. (1953) Age and Achievement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), pp. 330-31.

Middents, G.J. Relationship of Creativity and Anxiety , Dissertation Abstracts International, 1968, 28, 7,2562-A McCrae, R.R., Arenberg, D., & Costa, P.T. Declines in divergent thinking with age: Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and crosssequential analyses. Psychology and Aging, Vol 2(2), Jun 1987, 130-137.

Olive, H. A Note on Sex Differences in Adolescent‘s Divergent Thinking. J. of Psychology, 1972, 82, 1 , 39-42.

Passi, B.K. An exploratory study of creativity and its relationship with intelligence and achievement in school subjects at higher secondary stage. Doctoral dissertation, Chandigarh: Punjab University, 1972.

Raina, M.K. A Study of Some Correlates of Creativity in Indian Students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Rajasthan, 1968a.

Raina, M.K. A study of creativity in teachers. Psychological Studies, 1970, 15, 28-33 Raina , M.K. Ideational Fluency and Motivation of Teachers under Training : Indian Journal of Psychology, 1970a.

M.K.Raina. ―Verbal and Non-Verbal Creative Thinking Ability – A Study in Sex Differences‖ Journal of Education and Psychology. 29(3), 1971. 175- 179.

Raina, K., Psycho-social Correlates of Scientific Creativity among High School Students, Ph.D. Edu., Kur. U, 1986 Razik, T.M.A. An Investigation of Creative Thinking among College Students. Dissertation Abstracts International. 1964, 24, 7, 2775.

Sharma, K. (1982) ―Factors Related to Creativity‖ Doctoral dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.

Sharma, H.L., A Comparative Study of Engineers and Civil Services Personnel Belonging to Different Socio- economic Status in Relation to Their Interests and Creativity, Ph.D. Edu., Kur. U., 1986 Simpkins, N. & Eisenmen. ―Sex differences in creativity, ‖Psychology Reports. 22(3), (1968), 996.

Torrance, E.P. Guiding Creative Talent, N.D. Prentice – Hall of India Ltd.,1962.

Torrance, E. P. and N. C. Allioti. (1969). Sex differences in levels of performance and test-retest reliability on the Torrance tests of creative thinking ability. Journal of Creative Behavior, 3 (1): 52-57.

Tripathi, V.K.D., A Study of Personality Traits as related to Creativity among Male and Female Teacher Trainees of High, Middle and Low Socioeconomic Status, Ph.D. Edu., Avadh U., 1983 Usmani, S.N. (1981). ―Creativity in relation to alienation, ego-strength and intelligence in arts and science streams of Intermediate students‖, Doctoral dissertation, Banaras Hindu University.

Victor, K.P. & Anne L.H. ―Relationship between creativity and Rule orientation Behaviour,‖ Perceptual Motor Skills. 38(3), (1974),1163-71.

Wu, C.H., Cheng, Y. , Ip, H.M. and McBrigade-Chang, C. (2005) ―Age Differences in Creativity: Task Structure and Knowledge Base‖, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, 321- 326.

Table 1. The Scaled Score for the Creativity Index, with Added Interpretive Information.

Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adult Scoring Scaled Score Percentage of Adults Meaning 7 4 Substantial 6 12 High 5 20 Above Average 4 26 Average 3 20 Below Average 2 12 Low 1 4 Minimal Source: Goff & Torrance, 2002, p. 29.

*Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

56 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India Table 1.1: Summary of Analysis of Variance for All Factors of Creativity According to Gender and Locus of Control of the students.

Source Dependent Variable Type III Sum df Mean F Sig. of Squares Square Gender Fluency 1.356 1 1.356 .369 .544 1925.605 1 1925.605 4.887 .028 Originality 24.921 1 24.921 5.010 .026 Elaboration 88.802 1 88.802 9.569 .002 Flexibility Verbal Responses 1.786 1 1.786 1.341 .248 Figural Responses 13.045 1 13.045 2.214 .138 264.093 1 264.093 6.432 .012 NR_creativity 22.003 1 22.003 2.861 .092 CR_Creativity 457.070 1 457.070 7.018 .009 total_creativity LOC 129.411 1 129.411 35.175 .000 Fluency Originality 791.422 1 791.422 2.009 .158 202.435 1 202.435 40.700 .000 Elaboration 158.284 1 158.284 17.056 .000 Flexibility Verbal Responses 4.774 1 4.774 3.585 .060 98.547 1 98.547 16.724 .000 Figural_Responses 3641.797 1 3641.797 88.699 .000 NR_creativity 145.540 1 145.540 18.923 .000 CR_Creativity 5108.127 1 5108.127 78.428 .000 total_creativity Gender * LOC Fluency 7.903 1 7.903 2.148 .144 Originality 48.499 1 48.499 .123 .726 Elaboration 2.845 1 2.845 .572 .450 Flexibility .088 1 .088 .010 .922 Verbal Responses .060 1 .060 .045 .833 Figural Responses .143 1 .143 .024 .876 NR_creativity 58.689 1 58.689 1.429 .233 CR_Creativity .015 1 .015 .002 .965 total_creativity 47.480 1 47.480 .729 .394

Table 1.2 : Mean Scores of Gender for the Factors of Creativity Dependent Variable Male Female 12.92 13.08 Fluency 13.70 19.52 Originality 12.61 13.27 Elaboration 13.39 14.64 Flexibility 1.34 1.52 Verbal Responses 2.73 3.21 Figural Responses 53.20 55.35 NR Creativity 4.10 4.72 CR Creativity 57.19 60.03 Total Creativity

*Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

57 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India Table 1.3: Mean Scores of Locus of Control for the Factors of Creativity Dependent Variable Internal LOC External LOC 13.75 12.25 Fluency 18.47 14.74 Originality 13.89 12.00 Elaboration 14.85 13.18 Flexibility 1.57 1.28 Verbal Responses 3.63 2.31 Figural Responses 58.28 50.27 NR Creativity 5.21 3.61 CR Creativity 63.35 53.87 Total Creativity Table 1.4: Mean Scores of Gender * Locus of Control for All Factors of Creativity Dependent Variable Gender Internal LOC External LOC Male 13.86 11.98 Fluency Female 13.65 12.51 Male 15.10 12.29 Originality Female 21.85 17.19 Male 13.44 11.78 Elaboration Female 14.33 12.22 Male 14.21 12.58 Flexibility Female 15.50 13.79 Male 1.47 1.21 Verbal Responses Female 1.68 1.36 Male 3.42 2.05 Figural Responses Female 3.85 2.58 Male 57.71 48.68 NR Creativity Female 58.85 51.86 Male 4.89 3.31 CR Creativity Female 5.53 3.91 Male 62.39 52.00 Total Creativity Female 64.31 55.75 Table 2.1: Summary of Analysis of Variance for All Factors of Locus of control According to the Age group of the students at three creativity levels.

Source Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Df Mean F Sig. Squares Square LOC Fluency .037 1 .037 .010 .920 Originality 15.007 1 15.007 .037 .848 Elaboration 2.675 1 2.675 .570 .451 Flexibility 4.199 1 4.199 .443 .506 Verbal Responses 1.744 1 1.744 1.370 .243 Figural Responses .151 1 .151 .026 .873 NR creativity 29.439 1 29.439 .758 .385 CR Creativity 2.948 1 2.948 .393 .531 Total creativity 12.794 1 12.794 .209 .648 Age Group Fluency 15.826 3 5.275 1.465 .225 Originality 213.423 3 71.141 .176 .913 85.062 3 28.354 6.040 .001 Elaboration Flexibility 52.393 3 17.464 1.843 .140 10.300 3 3.433 2.697 .047 Verbal Responses Figural Responses 22.991 3 7.664 1.303 .274 *Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

58 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India

LOC* age group

NR creativity CR Creativity Total creativity Fluency Originality Elaboration Flexibility Verbal Responses Figural Responses NR creativity CR Creativity Total creativity

667.723 56.455 1092.965 30.015 590.767 32.831 41.068 11.883 31.665 569.935 70.127 995.951

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

222.574 18.818 364.322 10.005 196.922 10.944 13.689 3.961 10.555 189.978 23.376 331.984

5.730 2.510 5.952 2.779 .486 2.331 1.445 3.112 1.794 4.891 3.118 5.424

.001 .059 .001 .042 .692 .075 .230 .027 .149 .003 .027 .001

Table 2.2 : Mean Scores of Locus of control for the Factors of Creativity Dependent variable Internal LOC External LOC 13.38 13.46 Fluency 16.64 15.05 Originality 14.49 13.81 Elaboration 15.23 14.38 Flexibility 1.57 2.11 Verbal Responses 2.87 3.03 Figural Responses 57.99 55.75 NR Creativity 4.44 5.15 CR Creativity 62.37 60.90 Total Creativity Table 2.3: Mean Scores of Age- groups for the Factors of Creativity Dependent 18-20 yrs 21-23 yrs 24-26 yrs Variable 12.94 12.98 12.28 Fluency 16.34 17.62 12.42 Originality 12.84 13.05 11.71 Elaboration 14.09 13.99 12.64 Flexibility 1.38 1.49 1.00 Verbal Responses 2.97 3.05 1.28 Figural Responses 54.06 54.35 49.07 NR Creativity 4.35 4.55 2.28 CR Creativity 58.34 58.84 51.35 Total Creativity Table 2.4: Mean Scores of Locus of Control * Age –group for All Factors of Creativity Dependent Variable Age Group Internal LOC External LOC 18-20 yrs 13.78 12.10 Fluency 21-23 yrs 13.77 12.19 24-26 yrs 11.00 13.57 18-20 yrs 20.14 12.55 Originality 21-23 yrs 18.45 16.80 24-26 yrs 11.00 13.85 18-20 yrs 14.10 11.58 Elaboration 21-23 yrs 13.85 12.25 24-26 yrs 11.00 12.42 18-20 yrs 15.34 12.83 Flexibility 21-23 yrs 14.57 13.42 24-26 yrs 12.00 13.28 *Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

59 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India Verbal Responses

Figural Response

NR Creativity

CR Creativity

Total Creativity

18-20 yrs 21-23 yrs 24-26 yrs 18-20 yrs 21-23 yrs 24-26 yrs 18-20 yrs 21-23 yrs 24-26 yrs 18-20 yrs 21-23 yrs 24-26 yrs 18-20 yrs 21-23 yrs 24-26 yrs

1.49 1.80 -6.00 3.83 3.65 -8.00 59.03 57.92 45.00 5.32 5.45 -3.00 64.21 63.27 45.00

1.28 1.18 2.00 2.10 2.45 2.57 49.09 50.78 53.14 3.37 3.66 4.57 52.46 54.42 57.71

Table 3.1: Summary of Analysis of Variance for All Factors of Creativity According to Gender and Locus of Control of the students.

Source Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Df Mean Sq. F Squares Locus of control 38.625 1 38.625 10.598 Fluency Originality 207.552 1 207.552 .521 93.542 1 93.542 18.631 Elaboration 61.161 1 61.161 6.406 Flexibility Verbal Responses .796 1 .796 .600 37.840 1 37.840 6.407 Figural Responses 1304.635 1 1304.635 31.879 NR creativity 49.271 1 49.271 6.410 CR Creativity 1829.486 1 1829.486 28.150 Total creativity Family Type 15.608 1 15.608 4.283 Fluency Originality 889.974 1 889.974 2.236 Elaboration 12.010 1 12.010 2.392 Flexibility 10.590 1 10.590 1.109 Verbal Responses 1.102 1 1.102 .830 Figural Responses 8.436 1 8.436 1.428 307.246 1 307.246 7.508 NR creativity CR Creativity 17.288 1 17.288 2.249 441.659 1 441.659 6.796 Total creativity LOC* Family Type Fluency 13.681 1 13.681 3.754 Originality 69.619 1 69.619 .175 Elaboration 8.813 1 8.813 1.755 Flexibility 27.597 1 27.597 2.891 Verbal Responses 2.779 1 2.779 2.093 Figural Responses 8.331 1 8.331 1.410 337.092 1 337.092 8.237 NR creativity CR Creativity 18.919 1 18.919 2.461 507.258 1 507.258 7.805 Total creativity

*Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

Sig. .001 .471 .000 .012 .439 .012 .000 .012 .000 .040 .136 .123 .293 .363 .233 .007 .135 .010 .054 .676 .186 .090 .149 .236 .004 .118 .006

60 | Page

Components of Creativity in relation to Locus of Control: A Study of Students from Mysore University, India Table 3.2: Mean Scores of Locus of Control for the Factors of Creativity Dependent Variable Internal LOC External LOC 13.28 12.24 Fluency 16.96 14.56 Originality 13.60 11.99 Elaboration 14.49 13.19 Flexibility 1.44 1.29 Verbal Responses 3.33 2.31 Figural Responses 56.27 50.25 NR Creativity 4.78 3.61 CR Creativity 60.98 53.86 Total Creativity Table 3.3: Mean Scores of Family Type for the Factors of Creativity Dependent variable Nuclear Family Joint Family 13.09 12.43 Fluency 18.24 13.28 Originality 13.09 12.51 Elaboration 14.11 13.57 Flexibility 1.45 1.27 Verbal Responses 3.06 2.58 Figural Responses 54.72 51.80 NR Creativity 4.54 3.84 CR Creativity 59.17 55.67 Total Creativity Table 3.4: Mean Scores of Locus of Control X Family Type for the Factors of Creativity Dependent Variable Locus of Control Nuclear Family Joint family Internal LOC 13.91 12.64 Fluency External LOC 12.26 12.22 Internal LOC 20.14 13.78 Originality External LOC 16.35 12.77 Internal LOC 14.14 13.07 Elaboration External LOC 12.03 11.95 Internal LOC 15.20 13.78 Flexibility External LOC 13.02 13.35 Internal LOC 1.66 1.21 Verbal Responses External LOC 1.24 1.34 Internal LOC 3.82 2.85 Figural Responses External LOC 2.31 2.31 Internal LOC 59.26 53.28 NR Creativity External LOC 50.19 50.32 Internal LOC 5.48 4.07 CR Creativity External LOC 3.59 3.62 Internal LOC 64.60 57.35 Total Creativity External LOC 53.73 53.98

*Corresponding Author: Anu Singh Lather

61 | Page